Research Papers

Compressible Direct Numerical Simulation of Low-Pressure Turbines—Part II: Effect of Inflow Disturbances

[+] Author and Article Information
Vittorio Michelassi

Aero-Thermal Systems,
GE Global Research,
Munich D-85748, Germany

Li-Wei Chen

Research Fellow
Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics
Research Group,
Faculty of Engineering
and the Environment,
University of Southampton,
Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

Richard Pichler

Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics
Research Group,
Faculty of Engineering
and the Environment,
University of Southampton,
Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK

Richard D. Sandberg

Aerodynamics and Flight Mechanics
Research Group,
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment,
University of Southampton,
Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK
e-mail: R.D.Sandberg@soton.ac.uk

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received August 20, 2014; final manuscript received September 16, 2014; published online December 29, 2014. Editor: Ronald S. Bunker.

J. Turbomach 137(7), 071005 (Jul 01, 2015) (12 pages) Paper No: TURBO-14-1212; doi: 10.1115/1.4029126 History: Received August 20, 2014; Revised September 16, 2014; Online December 29, 2014

In the present paper, direct numerical simulation (DNS) studies of the compressible flow in the T106 linear cascade have been carried out. Various environmental variables, i.e., background turbulence level, frequency of incoming wakes, and Reynolds number, and a combination of these were considered for a total of 12 fully resolved simulations. The mechanisms dictating the observed flow phenomena, including the mixing and distortion of the incoming wakes, wake/boundary layer interaction, and boundary layer evolution impact on profile loss generation, are studied systematically. A detailed loss generation analysis allows the identification of each source of loss in boundary layers and flow core. Particular attention is devoted to the concerted impact of wakes distortion mechanics and the intermittent nature of the unsteady boundary layer. Further, the present study examines the validity of the Boussinesq eddy viscosity assumption, which invokes a linear stress–strain relationship in commonly used RANS models. The errors originating from this assumption are scrutinized with both time and phase-locked averaged flow fields to possibly identify shortcomings of traditional RANS models.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Prakash, C., Cherry, D. G., Shin, H. W., Machnaim, J., Dailey, L., Beacock, R., Halstead, D., Wadia, A. R., Guillot, S., and Ng, W. F., 2008, “Effect of Loading Level and Distribution on LPT Losses,” ASME Paper No. GT2008-50052. [CrossRef]
Arndt, N., 1993, “Blade Row Interaction in a Multistage Low-Pressure Turbine,” ASME J. Turbomach., 115(1), pp. 137–146. [CrossRef]
Halstead, D., Wisler, D., Okiishi, T., Walker, G., Hodson, H., and Shin, H., 1997, “Boundary Layer Development in Axial Compressors and Turbines: Part 1 of 4—Composite Picture,” ASME J. Turbomach., 119(1), pp. 114–127. [CrossRef]
Coull, J. D., Thomas, R. L., and Hodson, H. P., 2010, “Velocity Distributions for Low Pressure Turbines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 132(4), p. 041006. [CrossRef]
Stadtmüller, P., and Fottner, L., 2001, “A Test Case for the Numerical Investigation of Wake Passing Effects on a Highly-Loaded LP Turbine Cascade Blade,” ASME Paper No. 2001-GT-0311. [CrossRef]
Stadtmüller, P., 2001, “Investigation of Wake-Induced Transition on the LP Turbine Cascade T106A-EIZ,” DFG-Verbundprojekt Fo 136/11 Version 1.1, University of the Armed Forces, Munich, Germany.
Michelassi, V., Wissink, J., and Rodi, W., 2003, “Direct Numerical Simulation, Large Eddy Simulation and Unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Simulations of Periodic Unsteady Flow in a Low-Pressure Turbine Cascade: A Comparison,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part A, 217(4), pp. 403–411. [CrossRef]
Medic, G., and Sharma, O. P., 2012, “Large-Eddy Simulation of Flow in a Low-Pressure Turbine Cascade,” ASME Paper No. GT2012-68878. [CrossRef]
Langtry, R., and Menter, F., 2009, “Correlation-Based Transition Modeling for Unstructured Parallelized Computational Fluid Dynamics Codes,” AIAA J., 47(12), pp. 2894–2906. [CrossRef]
Keadle, K., and McQuilling, M., 2013, “Evaluation of RANS Transition Modeling for High Lift LPT Flows at Low Reynolds Number,” ASME Paper No. GT2013-95069. [CrossRef]
Walters, D. K. W., and Cokljat, D., 2008, “A Three-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Model for Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes Simulations of Transitional Flows,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 130(12), p. 012401. [CrossRef]
Wu, X., Jacobs, R. G., Hunt, J. C. R., and Durbin, P. A., 1999, “Simulation of Boundary Layer Transition Induced by Periodically Passing Wakes,” J. Fluid Mech., 398, pp. 109–153. [CrossRef]
Michelassi, V., Fröhlich, J., Rodi, W., and Wissink, J. G., 2003, “Large-Eddy Simulation of Flow Around Low-Pressure Turbine Blade With Incoming Wakes,” AIAA J., 41(11), pp. 2143–2156. [CrossRef]
Durbin, P., and Wu, X., 2007, “Transition Beneath Vortical Disturbances,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 39(1), pp. 107–128. [CrossRef]
Edwards, T., and Sandberg, R. D., 2011, “Parallelising HiPSTAR using OpenMP,” CRAY Centre of Excellence, Project Report 2011, www.hector.ac.uk/coe/pdf/HiPSTAR_OMP_Report.pdf
Sandberg, R. D., Pichler, R., and Chen, L. W., 2012, “Assessing the Sensitivity of Turbine Cascade Flow to Inflow Disturbances Using Direct Numerical Simulation,” 13th International Symposium for Unsteady Aerodynamics, Aeroacoustics and Aeroelasticity in Turbomachinery (ISUAAAT), Tokyo, Japan, Sept. 11–14.
Goldstein, D., Handler, R., and Sirovich, L., 1993, “Modeling a No-Slip Flow Boundary With an External Force Field,” J. Comput. Phys., 105(2), pp. 354–366. [CrossRef]
Jeong, J., and Hussain, F., 1995, “On the Identification of a Vortex,” J. Fluid Mech., 285, pp. 69–94. [CrossRef]
Denton, J. D., 1993, “Loss Mechanisms in Turbomachines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 115(4), pp. 621–656. [CrossRef]
Stewart, W. L., 1955, “Analysis of Two Dimensional Compressible Flow Loss Characteristics Downstream of Turbomachine Blade Rows in Terms of Basic Boundary Layer Characteristics,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, NACA Technical Note No. 3515.
Wilcox, D. C., 1998, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 2nd ed., DCW Industries, La Cañada Flintridge, CA.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Pressure coefficient (a) and wall shear distribution (b) on the blade surface at Re2is = 60,000. Here, Cax is the axial chord length.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Instantaneous contours of the spanwise component of vorticity (−50 to 50) in the midspan (x, y) plane for Fred = 0 (top left), Fred = 0.31 (top right), Fred = 0.61 (bottom left), and Fred = 1.22 (bottom right) with Tu = 0.5%, Re2is = 60,000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Isosurfaces of instantaneous second invariant of the velocity-gradient tensor (Q = 500) colored by velocity magnitude at various time instants for Fred = 0.31, Tu = 0.5%, Re2is = 60,000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Sketch of moving bars and the blade geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of Re2is = 60,000 and Re2is = 100,000: (a) pressure coefficient and (b) wall shear distribution

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Length of separation bubble: (a) top, TE separation bubble; (b) bottom, LE separation bubble

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Space–time diagrams of momentum thickness θ and the variation at the TE (s ∼ 1.308): (a) top, Fred = 0.31, Tu = 0.5%, Re2is = 60,000; (b) mid, Fred = 0.61, Tu = 0.5%, Re2is = 60,000; (c) bottom, Fred = 1.22, Tu = 0.5%, Re2is = 60,000

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Two phase-averaged snapshots of TKE (a) and (c), top, and TKE production terms (b) and (d), bottom, with the contour levels between 0 (blue) and 0.05 (red): ϕ = 0 and 0.4 and 0.8 (Fred = 0.31, Tu = 0.5% and Re2is = 60,000)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Two phase-averaged snapshots of TKE (a) and (c), top, and TKE production terms (b) and (d), bottom, with the contour levels between 0 (blue) and 0.05 (red): φ=0 and 0.4 (Fred = 0.61, Tu = 0.5% and Re2is = 60,000)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Comparison of the wake stagnation pressure loss profiles with reference data: (a) Re2is = 60,000 and (b) Re2is = 100,000. Here, “P” denotes pressure side and “S” suction side.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Stagnation pressure losses calculated with mixed-out quantities

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Terms of the TE profile loss in Eq. (1) suggested by Denton [19]: (a) the base pressure loss TERM 1; (b) the mixed-out loss of the boundary layer (or the momentum deficit loss) TERM 2; and (c) the combined blockage loss TERM 3

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Normalized Reynolds stresses error using the Boussinesq approximation at Re2is = 60,000 and Tu = 3.2%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Denton's loss coefficient (a), top, and the difference from mixed-out losses (b), bottom

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison of the deviation Δ, wake mixing η1 and distortion losses η2: (a), top, Tu = 0.5%, Re2is = 60,000; (b) Tu = 3.2%, Re2is = 60,000. The sketch shows the locations of the profiles extracted outside of the boundary layer.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Minimum Reynolds stress error et,min using Boussinesq approximation at Re2is = 60,000 and Tu = 3.2%

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Reynolds stress error et,kε using kε model with the Boussinesq approximation at Re2is = 60,000 at a reduced frequency of 0.61 at the same time instant as in Fig. 9(d)



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In